Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[datc]

But even that 'inifnity' is an unsupported presupposition. You can't claim that there could've been an infinite number of possible universes if we only have one universe to possibly examine. We don't know what happened before the big bang or even if there was a 'before' the big bang. You don't get to say that our universe is so unlikely just because it's particular in some constants. It could be that our current universe was the only possibe result of a pre-existing conditions, and there weren't an infinite number of possibilities. Sorry, you don't get to claim knowledge of probability before the beginning of the universe because there's no possible way (right now at least) for anyone to make any affirmative statement about the pre-big bang conditions.

Our universe is one; it's everything that actually exists or existed, including everything really existing "before big bang."

But a possible world is an abstraction defined as a maximally consistent set of propositions which are true in that world. It's an idea in the mind. And there are an infinitude of such ideas.

So, the question is why this all-encompassing actual universe is uniquely this and not any other similarly all-encompassing possible world.

[FatAndFaithless]

But even that 'inifnity' is an unsupported presupposition. You can't claim that there could've been an infinite number of possible universes if we only have one universe to possibly examine. We don't know what happened before the big bang or even if there was a 'before' the big bang. You don't get to say that our universe is so unlikely just because it's particular in some constants. It could be that our current universe was the only possibe result of a pre-existing conditions, and there weren't an infinite number of possibilities. Sorry, you don't get to claim knowledge of probability before the beginning of the universe because there's no possible way (right now at least) for anyone to make any affirmative statement about the pre-big bang conditions.

Our universe is one; it's everything that actually exists or existed, including everything really existing "before big bang."

But a possible world is an abstraction defined as a maximally consistent set of propositions which are true in that world. It's an idea in the mind. And there are an infinitude of such ideas.

So, the question is why this all-encompassing actual universe is uniquely this and not any other similarly all-encompassing possible world.

Um..no. You don't get to throw a bunch of somewhat-brainy sounding words together and trot them out as some sort of valid philosophical point. You do not get to say anything about before the big bang, because we now exactly zero about what was before the big bang or if it's even possible to have a 'before' the big bang beacuse our current understanding of temporality begins with the big bang. Also, are you seriously saying that if someone can imagine a consistent world-model, that makes it one of the possible world-models whose form our current universe might've taken? You have absolutely nothing but conjecture, bald assertions, and sloppy appropriation of quasi-scientific language in your posts. Sorry, not even close.

[datc]

And for what it's worth, in the Hindu pantheon, the Shakti or divine feminine is the active principle. Like much else here you've simply coughed up your pre-existing beliefs as self-evident assertions. They aren't.

Well then, the Hindus made a mistake and got it wrong, didn't they?

Surely, we humans are fallible creatures and need not be condemned for such failures.

[FatAndFaithless]

And for what it's worth, in the Hindu pantheon, the Shakti or divine feminine is the active principle. Like much else here you've simply coughed up your pre-existing beliefs as self-evident assertions. They aren't.

Well then, the Hindus made a mistake and got it wrong, didn't they?

Surely, we humans are fallible creatures and need not be condemned for such failures.

Well, aren't you just a wonderfully arrogant Christian? "The Hindus just got it wrong". I hope your high horse bites you in the ass.

[Surgenator]

Come on! I specifically say "infinity" of possible worlds, not millions of them; and "exactly" zero, not effectively zero.

That flawed reasoning is not affected by the number of possibilities. A possibility must be choosen. Whatever the chosen possibility is, it will always have a lower probability than anything else being chosen (unless the possible choices is limited to 2 or less).

Since you haven't responed. I'm going to assume your "argument from particularity" is wrong.

[datc]

The failure of this argument is obvious. You are insisting that the current universe is somehow meant to be, but that is an unwarranted assumption.

We exist as a result of this universe's existence. If it weren't this universe, we wouldn't be. So what? What makes you believe that we are meant to be?

I am not assuming that it is meant to be. I am saying that the highly peculiar essence of our universe, U, could not have been randomly generated.

Some actual cause determined the form of the universe. It could have been a physical cause C1 that had to, deterministically, result in U. But C1 would presumably, too, have an interesting essence, and the question would arise again.

Far more sensible is to argue that there was an intelligence creating U for a purpose, such as (for example) the best possible world, presumably a singular thing.

[FatAndFaithless]

[datc]

The problem with this argument is it assumes that only one configuration exist. Perhaps all configurations exist and since we are in this one, we observe this one. No choice was made, it was simply an evitable consequence of all configurations existing. Since I could use this same argument to "prove" a multiverse its not really a proof of God.

All configurations cannot exist, because only an infinite number of ideal things can exist (in the mind); not an infinite number of real things (out there).

[FatAndFaithless]

Get your bald assertions here! A dollar each or three for $2.50!

[datc]

Um..no. You don't get to throw a bunch of somewhat-brainy sounding words together and trot them out as some sort of valid philosophical point. ...

First understand, then criticize.